Ideas for a progressive future

Has the ground shifted?

The political climate may not have changed

The surprise election result has led many to hope that there has been a change in the political climate. Those who hope for a more equitable society, a reduction in the huge disparities of wealth, and fairer treatment for those who work in the public sector for example, may have taken heart by the events of the past couple of weeks. The terrible disaster of Grenfell Tower also brought calls for tighter regulation and rows broke out about the privatisation of the management arrangements and refurbishment allegedly done on the cheap.

In this piece I argue for caution since I believe fundamental beliefs by the public have not changed.

The Conservative government looks weak at present although there will no appetite for a leadership election anytime soon. Contenders are denying they are out on manoeuvres. A deal has yet to be concluded with the DUP. Austerity – the policy which the government has pursued for around 7 years – is now only a flickering ember and it is said the word is no longer in the lexicon of Conservative MPs. The policy is a disaster, yet, the ability of the government to change tack is severely limited with the prospect of higher interest rates, the pound under further pressure, the effects of Brexit on the horizon, the dire state of our productivity, the poor state of our balance of payments : well … on and on it goes.

So the grim nature of where we are and the huge support which the Labour party achieved at the election – against nearly all predictions – has led some commentators to assume that ‘things are achangin’’. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that the Conservatives will pinch some of Labour’s clothes in the coming months (although a cap on energy companies for example – which the Conservatives called ‘Marxist’ when Labour proposed it – was not in the Queen’s speech) the idea that the ideology they have pursued since the days of Margaret Thatcher is not dead.

Briefly, this is the neoliberal ideology of small government, low taxes, limited regulation, privatisation and free trade. It has led to zero hours contracts, reduced inspection regimes and ‘red tape’, and huge disparities between the richest and poorest in our society. It contributed to the banking crash because they were weakly regulated. Low taxes have not delivered greater prosperity for the majority of the population and have led to private wealth and public squalor. Privatisation has not led to greater efficiency and the scale of the corruption by some private companies has been immense.

Surely some have argued, there will be a sea change in government attitudes? I am not so sure that much will change. The main reason is that the core beliefs of the neoliberals are widely popular at least in principle. What Mrs Thatcher achieved was to unify the prosperous with the poorest to believe in the same things. This created an extremely powerful force. Take for example the belief in deregulation and a reduction in bureaucracy and red tape. This is hugely popular in the City and among many corporate leaders. It enables them to employ thousands on zero hours contracts knowing that there are too few inspectors to catch them out. It is also popular with ordinary people who cheer loudly on programmes like Question Time if a politician says he or she is dedicated to reducing ‘petty fogging regulations’ or some similar phrase. One effect of reduced regulation is the continuing high use of sugar in food and drinks which result in thousands of children needing hospital treatment to remove their teeth.

Austerity was widely accepted as a necessary policy. The Conservatives brilliantly blamed the Labour government for overspending and successfully deflected attention from the real cause which was a massive failure of the banking system which took place because of deregulation. It bore down hardest on the poorest and is now seen to be both an economic failure as well as causing untold hardship.

They also successfully blamed the ‘scroungers and skivers’ for fleecing the benefit system while saying nothing about corporate welfare which, by some estimates, amounts to around £180bn a year. It is truly staggering that scarcely a week goes by without hearing from the corporate sector about the negative effect on growth caused by our tax system, with veiled threats that they will move to a low tax regime like Ireland or Luxembourg if something is done to increase them, while all the time they and their firms are the biggest beneficiaries of the tax system.

Every so often there is a disaster – such as Grenfell Tower last week – and the cry goes up about why it was allowed to happen and that ‘they’ should have done something about it. That ‘something’ is the Building Regulations and they were not updated, allegedly because of a belief in deregulation as a means to stimulate the economy. A cull of staff in local authorities has reduced their ability to carry out checks and enforcements across a range of issues although in the case of Kensington and Chelsea, they were not short of funds. The problem there was indifference by the authority not shortage of money.

The other principles of the Neoliberals are similarly popular. Small government: since many believe governments are incompetent and our politicians venal, corrupt or useless then it follows that the fewer of them the better. That the private sector is more efficient than the public is accepted without question by many. While private sector directors rake in multi-million salaries, bonuses and share options – sometimes while their companies are producing poor results or even failing – any local authority chief executive earning more than say, £150,000 is lampooned and castigated. Yet often those companies are doing no more than was being done by a public body.

Less regulation will stimulate entrepreneurs is another basic belief. Cut the regulations and all sorts of businesses will pop up to capitalise on the new freedoms. Entrepreneurs will appear like mushrooms on an autumn morning bursting to create jobs in a deregulated market. That regulations actually create compliance work seems to be forgotten.

So the idea that the government will change tack and explain that we need more tax if we are to have better health, new roads and improved education is not going to happen. The idea that they accept we need more regulation of the corporate sector is also unlikely. Better pay for politicians so that we get better quality people and prohibit practices such as the ‘revolving door’ is also never going to get off the ground.

For real change to happen then some of the basic beliefs that the population as a whole cling to will have to change. The neoliberal ideas are deep rooted and widely popular. A more mature philosophy is needed and until that emerges then the current ideology will continue to reign supreme.

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “Has the ground shifted?”

I think you are right to urge caution as to whether the political climate has changed. And yet I can’t help feeling that there is some movement. What we are talking about here, of course, is the old dominant ideology idea. By this I mean a collection or system of beliefs held by a group or an individual designed to serve the interests of that group or individual regardless of – or at least not purely because of – rational or evidential justification. I distinguish this from political or economic theory. So in this sense neoliberalism is the theory that has become the dominant ideology.
The source of my optimism is that 50 years ago neoliberalism was held by a few outriders and only became mainstream after years of disseminating the idea in universities and the media until it found a political outlet with Thatcher and Reagan. Before that the post-war consensus of a mixed economy, full-employment and greater equality could be seen as the dominant ideology. So things change. Further more neoliberalism itself is a fundamentally flawed theory. At its heart is the metaphysical homo economicus – an agent which either is or should be a perfectly rational being making rational self-interested decisions in a perfectly free and equal market. This is a model of human nature that does not bear scrutiny and makes it vulnerable to quick implosion.
But as regards the election itself, well I think there have been some immediate changes, not least the fact that the Tories have been forced to strip bare their legislative programme. But the surge in Labour support from younger voters is also encouraging. So too is the fact that a truly radical manifesto does not necessarily put voters off. And 13 pages of Daily Mail bile also seemed to fall on deaf ears.
Finally, there has been a marked convergence among progressive parties and a shift to the left. Some, remembering the Lib Dems in coalition with the Tories, argue that the Lib Dems aren’t truly progressive, but conveniently forget that not so long ago Labour was fully signed up to neoliberalism, content merely to cream off the receipts to pour into public services. At least organisations like the NHS got a massive boost in funding but nothing fundamental changed and it was too easy for the Tories to reverse. One of my concerns is that with Labour now in a realistic position to win the next election it will be even more firmly opposed to a progressive alliance, even though I believe that progressives will be stronger fighting together rather than each other. As something of an aside here I have noted that those opposed to a progressive alliance tend to present it as a monolithic all or nothing beast, which make it easier to bring down. In fact there is a wide range of nuanced positions that can be adopted from local to national levels which themselves range form vote-swapping and non-aggression arrangements to jointly selected candidates and policy pledges.

In the run-up to the General Election, the Progressive Alliance made powerful statements, and argued persuasively. In some constituencies the Liberal candidates stood down to let Labour in. In many constituencies the Green stood down, to let Labour in. But Labour refused to stand down anywhere, and as a result some seats which might have gone Progressive, went Tory. It was fair to say that in those constituencies a vote for Labour was a vote for the Tories.